Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
Party politics today is a race to the boxcars; first team there gets to make the other team ride.

Friday, November 30, 2007

What an amazing pack of scoundrels.

Re-watching the Second Amendment portion of the GOP debate, I have to admit that I'm just stunned that some of these ciphers are actually being considered worthy candidates for the Oval Office. I wouldn't trust half these clowns with the keys to my car, let alone the keys to my country. Just once, I'd like a chance to moderate one of these debates:

Me: "Okay. On to the Second Amendment. Mr. Giuliani, we already know how you feel about it, so I'm not going to give you a chance to lie. Senator McCain? How do you feel about the Second Amendment?"

McCain: "Well, when I was flying over Vietnam..."

Me: "Can you go thirty seconds without mentioning Vietnam? The question was about the Second Amendment."

McCain: "Well, my government-issue .45 I carried when I was a pilot over Vietnam..."

Me: "Shut up. Mr. Huckabee, how about you? How do you feel about the Second Amendment?"

Huckabee: "Jesus."

Me: "Huh?"

Huckabee: "God. Family values."

Me: "Yes, but about the Second Amendment?"

Huckabee: "The Bible. No gay marriage."

Me: "Never mind. Hey, you! The blow-dried tool down towards the end who looks like he just hopped out of a tanning bed! How about you? What do you think about the Second Amendment?"

Romney: (Strikes pose and smiles like an underwear model for the camera.)

Me: "You're an idiot. On to the next question: Taxes. How bad do you think they suck?"

20 comments:

wolfwalker
said...

I tend to agree: why can't we find anybody better than this bunch? The only ones worth looking at twice are Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson -- but Hunter has no chance, and Thompson is a "for lack of anyone better" choice.

Then again, I've asked the same question in every election since I was old enough to care about them. So it's hardly a new problem.

Somebody should stick an Invisible Fence collar on McCain, so that every gratuitous mention of Vietnam earns him a "slight correction."

Yeah, but he's an elf, and short men have historically been a no-go for the orifice of POTUS.

Besides, he's a Truther, and I immediately part ways with dolts who will claim any part of that business. I know better. He's openly called for more "investigations" about the whole affair, so there's no denying he's loony.

He talks a good game (taxes, to name one), but he's attempting to play basketball with a bunch of seasoned veterans at this game, and he's, as I said before, vertically challenged. Outclassed in a field with far too much savvy.

Also Paul's forign policy under various interpretations would either:-Allow another country to NUKE us before we go to war-Go to war to overthrow dicator with WMDs, but then leave and allow anything with a pulse and guns to take over the state.

Thanks, but no. McCain had a Point with the WWII reference, and I think that makes Paul VERY scary

Not to mention as POTUS he's extream enugh that both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress won't want to work with him to achive his goals.

you think we have partisan Messyness now, imgaine Paul in the White House

One of the questions: Your answer to this question will tell us everything we need to know about you.

I was expecting a second amendment question; instead, the idiot held up a bible and asked if they believed _every_ word in it.

My hope was that the response would be how "Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths" of the u.S. Constitution made the answer to that question irrelevant: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

He's openly called for more "investigations" about the whole affair, so there's no denying he's loony.

Ron Paul has said that the 9/11 commission is a coverup... for the ineptitude of the government. You can smell the bias against Ron Paul right through your screen when people connect him with Truthers. "He was on a radio show with a nut, he must be a nut!"(guilt by association fallacy) Or better yet, "He said there needs to be more investigation, that means he's a truther!" (being an idiot fallacy)

If he believes the 9/11 commission was a coverup (I'm assuming here, but I think he does), and has openly called for more investigations and also wants to play all nicey nice with dolts like Dylan Avery, then I must conclude that he doesn't believe the conclusions of the report, what happened on that day and why, and the antecedents to it all.

I can't say that I've read the report, but I know enough about the subject of structural failures of buildings to know that that piece of it wasn't an inside job.

Another thing. I have a bias against Paul because I believe he's stupid, and nothing else. I didn't project any kind of "screen" and you know it. Piss off.

"Well, that's not exactly fair to Huckleberry or Huckabee or whatever his name is..."

Huckabee actually started using those same Chuck Norris "quotes" that 12 year olds have been throwing around at one of his recent speeches. So I think pretty much anything is fair game now, with regards to him.

At least the rest of the pool we have to choose from are just idiots. Huckabee is trying really hard to cross the line to "full on nut job".